Message-ID: <43660BF5.80008 at rftp.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:20:05 -0800
From: Robert Roessler <robertr at rftp.com>
Organization: Robert's High-performance Software
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue at math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
CC: lablgtk at math.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Subject: Re: DLL import lib and new LablGTK distribution?
References: <4365B422.8060705 at rftp.com> <20051031.161133.123928805.garrigue at math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20051031.161133.123928805.garrigue at math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> From: Robert Roessler <robertr at rftp.com>
> 
>> So, with the 2.6 distribution, where am I supposed to come up with the 
>> dlllablgtk2.lib file?  Since it is used with the DLL, which is used by 
>> bytecode OCaml programs, shouldn't it be included in a "binary" 
>> distribution?
>>
>> Back in June/July, you had agreed that this should be part of a 
>> standard "make install" - and the Makefile reflects this... so was 
>> this just an oversight?
>>
>> Yes, of course I can go back to doing full builds of LablGTK, but I 
>> assume that the intent of making the "binary" distribution is to avoid 
>> that (unless required for native linking)? :)
> 
> I thought a bit about it, but I finally concluded that this was not
> the goal of the binary distribution. It is intended for ocaml
> programmers, not for C hackers :-)
> More precisely, you only need dlllablgtk2.lib if you want to create
> another C stub library depending on dlllablgtk2.dll. In such a case
> you will also need header files, etc...
> On the other hand you don't need it if you just want to link a
> program, even if this program uses other libraries distributed
> as binary. See for instance the lablrsvg package for that.

Like I said, I can certainly go back to to doing the full LablGTK 
builds the old way... it just seems sort of pointless to not pass 
along something that is both needed (for widgets wanting to use 
Val_GtkObject_sink) and is a free byproduct of a build you are doing 
anyway.

Put a different way, nothing *forced* you to include the .lib 
dependencies with your packaging of the GTK runtime - but you do 
because it saves some steps for users of the software you have spent 
so much time on (and might ultimately help get even more users).

And the only "C hacking" being done here is to provide OCaml wrappers 
for GTK widgets so that others will not have to - and can just enjoy 
the luxury of OCaml-only programming. :)

This is even more unfortunate, given the apparent coolness of the new 
"build.ml" approach - I got a "Now ready to use on an OCaml MSVC port" 
the first time I tried it...

> By the way, it appears do be very easy to recreate an export library
> from a dll, using pexport. See the details here
>   http://mingw.org/mingwfaq.shtml#faq-msvcdll
> So even if you don't have it, you still have it.

Thanks for the pointer - but this looks "hackish" enough that I would 
rather do the full build anyway, given that I have the "option".

Robert Roessler
robertr@rftp.com
http://www.rftp.com